International Political Implications of Language : The Linguistic Puzzle of “Inherent Territory”

Abstract

The term “inherent territory” is commonly used to claim disputed lands within the Korean, Chinese, and Japanese languages. It is not common in English. This paper explores the phrase for the first time as a multi-lingual phenom- enon, focusing especially on its implications for English. The term became internationally prominent after 1950 because of Japan’s territorial dispute with the Soviet Union over the Northern Territories/Southern Kuril Islands. Japan gradually applied the term to its territorial conflicts with Korea and China. Over time, it became more prominent in both Korean and Chinese, as well. In addition to the Japan-Russia dispute, it now is used in official language in the Dokdo-Takeshima, Diaoyu-Senkaku, and South China Sea territorial disputes. With its increased usage across Northeast Asia, including in English translation easily available on the Internet, the term has strong potential to become common usage in English with respect to territorial conflicts outside of Northeast Asia. Yet, that potential has not been realized. This paper explores possible reasons why English speakers are reluctant to use “inherent terri- tory” through a close political-discursive-linguistic analysis. This paper also discusses the term’s potential power if it becomes more popular in English. The article addresses “inherent territory’s” lack of status within international law, translation issues, the multiple meanings of inherent, connections be- tween “inherent” and “inherit,” the metaphysics of inherent, and the issue of standards through which to evaluate claims to “inherent territory.” The paper explains why the English “inherent territory” is simultaneously vague, potentially powerful, and deeply problematic. No entity – be it a global corporation, international union, or political party – can take away the inherent rights of human beings. Our American birthright is built on that fundamental assurance (“What’s the problem?” n.d.; emphasis added).